Crl. Misc. M-15869-2018 (OM) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Crl. Misc. M-15869-2018 (OM)
Date of Decision: 26.09.2018

Sarvesh Bhardwaj and others
…Petitioners

Versus
State of Haryana and another
…Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:- Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr. P.P. Chahar, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Kanwar Satbir Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.2.

JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (Oral)

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No.0177 dated 27.02.2018

registered under Sections 323, 354, 377, 406, 498A and 506 of Indian Penal

Code at Police Station Sonipat City, District Sonipat (Annexure P/1) and all

subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise dated

21.03.2018 (Annexure P/2).

The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant-

respondent No.2 on the allegations that the accused-petitioners had

harassed and tortured her in her matrimonial home for not bringing enough

dowry and gave beatings to her and also threatened to kill her. The

accused-petitioners also attacked the relatives of complainant-respondent

1 of 3
14-10-2018 07:42:44 :::
Crl. Misc. M-15869-2018 (OM) -2-

No.2 when they came to take her along. Now with the intervention of

respectable persons, the matter has been amicably compromised between the

parties and they have resolved their disputes and differences.

Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a

compromise, they were directed to appear before the trial court/Illaqa

Magistrate for getting their statements recorded in support of the

compromise. In pursuance of the direction, a report dated 04.05.2018 has

been received from Chief Judicial Magistrat at Sonepat fowarded through

District and Sessions Judge, Sonepat, stating that the compromise arrived at

between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and

the same is genuine one.

Learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, on instructions

from the Investigating Officer and learned counsel for the complainant-

respondent No.2 admit the factum of compromise and submit that in case

the parties have indeed settled their dispute, the State would have no

objection to the quashing of the FIR, in view of the law laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the record.

In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a

loser. Rather, a compromise not only brings peace and harmony between

the parties to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society. After

considering the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that

both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, continuance of criminal

prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate

2 of 3
14-10-2018 07:42:44 :::
Crl. Misc. M-15869-2018 (OM) -3-

conviction are bleak.

Consequently, keeping in view the fact that the dispute has

been amicably settled and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and

another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, this petition is allowed and FIR No.0177 dated

27.02.2018 registered under Sections 323, 354, 377, 406, 498A and 506 of

Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sonipat City, District Sonipat and all

subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed.

The petition stands disposed of.

September 26, 2018 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
seema JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No

3 of 3
14-10-2018 07:42:44 :::